Story in the Wail on Sunday. Ex-England schoolboy Rugby Player arrested for filming the Police skiving in a coffee shop.
That is the thrust of the story, but obviously will be carrying the usual Wail Predjudices.
The wider story though is that I have heard of several instances where plod (inc PCSO) have got their arse in their hand over being filmed by joe public. My understanding is that it is perfectly legal in most cases and plod just doesn't like it and has a tendency to pretend that it is illegal.

The police tried extremely hard, during the Era of the Great Traitors, for public filming of the police to be made de-facto illegal, but this was fortunately stamped on hard enough to be stopped.

If you want, you can buy a lens-cleaning cloth with a broad-brush statement of the law on it. Most camera/photography magazines and their websites have notes on the matter. These officers need to be disciplined, not for "skiving" because they probably weren't, but to ensure this s**t doesn't get out of hand again.

I beleive there is something in the Terrorism Act 2005 (?) that relates to the photography of Officers ... Plod might just be overstretching a tad here; it's not uncommon for the Police to interpret legislation differently to how Parliament intnded.

I beleive there is something in the Terrorism Act 2005 (?) that relates to the photography of Officers ... Plod might just be overstretching a tad here; it's not uncommon for the Police to interpret legislation differently to how Parliament intnded.

Click to expand...

This was exactly what happened, even to the extent of a person taking tourist photos in London being arrested. "Guidelines" i.e., clarification of the law as it was intended all along have been issued since. I believe we did a thread on it then. F***ing police, in no less a person than the Met commissioner, have publicly acknowledged it.

IIRC, I saw a YouTube video with someone filming plod doing everyday business. Plod objected and a debate ensued;
"Stop filming us"
"Why? It's not illegal?"
"It is an offence."
"No it isn't"
"Yes it is"
"No it isn't"
And so on. Eventually plod was asked under what law it was an offence, and he had to call back to the station to find out, only to be told that there was no such law and he was wrong, all caught on camera.

In my limited experience in dealing with a few plastic police it seems that they may be told to react a certain way.Ive never actually filmed them but the threat of it made them immediately backtrack, try to leave the scene and tell me that it's illegal before radioing the real police for 'backup'.After that and informing me I was on CCTV the rozzer told them to move on.So in theory they had video evidence of me but I was being prohibited from keeping my own record of the situation.

Far as I'm aware it's completely legal and in regards to terrorism they can nick you to have a look at what you've been filming if they've reasonable grounds to believe you're carrying out hostile recon. I've been lucky enough not to have an iPhone shoved into my face while nicking someone but have pissed myself watching it happen to others as they shit themselves trying to make sure they don't screw up on camera.
It's the same bollocks as parents being told they're not allow to film their kid's sports days and such just in case they're a nonce. If they genuinely believed you were filming kids for sexual pleasure they should be looking to arrest you not just stop you filming.

IIRC, I saw a YouTube video with someone filming plod doing everyday business. Plod objected and a debate ensued;
"Stop filming us"
"Why? It's not illegal?"
"It is an offence."
"No it isn't"
"Yes it is"
"No it isn't"
And so on. Eventually plod was asked under what law it was an offence, and he had to call back to the station to find out, only to be told that there was no such law and he was wrong, all caught on camera.

It's not that I dislike the police, I just hate idiots who have no idea about things yet pretend they do. Spouting their pseudo bullshit laws/rules/facts, like they know what they're talking about when you know you're right. If I'm wrong or unsure, I'll happily admit it and bow down to the superior knowledge of others, but it's the people who swear blind they're right (when they're wrong) that piss me off.

Far as I'm aware it's completely legal and in regards to terrorism they can nick you to have a look at what you've been filming if they've reasonable grounds to believe you're carrying out hostile recon. I've been lucky enough not to have an iPhone shoved into my face while nicking someone but have pissed myself watching it happen to others as they shit themselves trying to make sure they don't screw up on camera.
It's the same bollocks as parents being told they're not allow to film their kid's sports days and such just in case they're a nonce. If they genuinely believed you were filming kids for sexual pleasure they should be looking to arrest you not just stop you filming.

Click to expand...

If the Police actually just looked at the video/pictures and then handed them back, no-one would mind, but in EVERY case I have heard of, the camera was either damaged, the camera card stolen or the pictures deleted. This is an abuse of authority, and needs stamping on before the police start thinking it is legal. No-one is complaining about an arrest of a person who is doing reconnaissance filming, but then you would never know anyway, as they would do it carefully and covertly.

So the end result is that the police just end up harassing the innocent public and never actually catching a terrorist filming.

A few years ago I was on a night out with friends and we decided to go to the kebab shop for some late night food. I had my mobile in my hand and saw a police car outside said kebab shop, with coppers queuing up for their food. I got pointed my phone camera at them and immediately had a torch shone at my face/camera and told harshly to stop. I wasn't looking for a fight and I didn't really care, so I did, but I'm sure it wouldn't have been the most pleasant experience had I decided to to back down!

There was another case this week, though on this occasion plod came out of it ok, woman at the coast phoned to complain about a bloke taking photos at the beac that included her kids. Plod did say 'that is not an offence' but did a quick check with the photographer to confirm what he was doing and what he intended to do with the images - that is where any offence may lie. As a keen photographer of all sorts of stuff I have yet to be accosted, but as earlier posts say, most photo mag websites have a 'you and the law' section. To be honest if plod is that bothered he can look at my images, as long as he doesn't delay or impede me.